(PC) Northcutt v. Sacramento Sheriff's Dept., et al
Filing
10
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 01/28/2025 GRANTING Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and DISMISSING the 1 Complaint with leave to amend. Within 30 days from service of this order, Plaintiff shall file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Deputy Clerk KS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TRAVIS SHANE NORTHCUTT,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 2:24-cv-2503-DJC-JDP (P)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at North Kern State Prison, brings this action against
19
defendants Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, the Napa Division of the Department of State
20
Hospitals, and Harper Medical Group. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The complaint is deficient for two
21
reasons. First, plaintiff’s allegations present at least two unrelated claims against more than one
22
defendant and, thus, cannot proceed as one suit. Second, the complaint fails to adequately explain
23
how any of the defendants are responsible for the allegations plaintiff raises. I will dismiss
24
plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend so that he may remedy these deficiencies. I will grant
25
his application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2.
26
27
28
1
1
Screening Order
2
I.
Screening and Pleading Requirements
3
A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental
4
entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable
5
claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
6
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
7
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
8
A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
10
face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not
11
require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
12
662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
13
possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not
14
identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,
15
1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that
16
give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264
17
n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
18
The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
19
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it
20
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
21
would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).
22
However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
23
of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
24
1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
25
II.
Analysis
26
Plaintiff brings at least two separate claims. First, he alleges that, on an unspecified date
27
in 2014, while at the Sacramento County Main Jail, he was forced to take medication to which he
28
was allergic in retaliation for grievances he filed. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that this forced
2
1
medication continued when he was transferred Napa State Hospital. Id. Second, plaintiff alleges
2
that, between 2006 and 2014, he was repeatedly abused and assaulted during a different stint at
3
Napa State Hospital. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also alleges that, between 2021 and 2023, he “uncovered”
4
a child sex slave ring in Sacramento that he attempted to report. Id. at 4. He alleges that
5
numerous unnamed individuals worked to discredit his discovery. Id. I cannot tell how, if at all,
6
these fanciful allegations relate to his other claims or to the named defendants in this action.
7
Unrelated claims brought against more than one defendant belong in separate suits. See Fed. R.
8
Civ. P. 18(a); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus multiple claims against
9
a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated
10
Claim B against Defendant 2.”).
11
Additionally, and at a more fundamental level, I cannot tell how any of the three entities
12
named as defendants in this action are implicated in any of the claims above. Rule 8 of the
13
federal rules of civil procedure requires that the complaint provide each defendant fair notice of
14
the claims against him or her. See Biggins v. Wells Fargo & Co., 266 F.R.D. 399, 408 (N.D. Cal.
15
2009) (“One purpose of Rule 8 is to put a defendant on fair notice of the nature of the claims that
16
are asserted against it and the grounds upon which those claims rest.”). The current complaint
17
fails to do that.
18
Finally, I note that plaintiff has separately filed “supplemental documents” that appear to
19
relate to the initial complaint. ECF No. 9. A complaint must be complete in itself and not
20
submitted piecemeal. Plaintiff may include all relevant allegations and materials in his amended
21
complaint.
22
I will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff is advised that any
23
amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.
24
3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Amended
25
Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.
26
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
27
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.
28
2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
3
1
2
3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended
complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.
3
4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may
4
result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed
5
with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
6
5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
11
January 28, 2025
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?